Lipski

[Abby Normal]

"Mary Kelly was at home in bed and was destroyed, not soliciting on the street, and no trace of skill full cutting."

Hello Michael,

So are you suggesting that in the Fall of 1888 there were two different killers walking the streets of Whitechapel one of whom preferred cutting the throats of prostitutes and taking out their internal organs on the street while the other one had a preference for cutting the throats of prostitutes and ripping out their internal organs while safely ensconced inside?

c.d.

Exactly
It's absurd how far some people go on here to see minor differences in major similarities. I mean you could say there are 5 different serial killers based on the minor differences in c5.

Polly. No organs taken
Chapman. Uterus taken
Eddowes. Kidney taken
Stride. Cut throat only
Kelly. Heart taken

[Fisherman]

There is also the point that both of these killers had a flair for cutting the abdominal walls away from their victims, as per Chapman and Kelly.

And not only that, there was also a THIRD killer with this rather odd penchant!!

[Harry D]

As per usual you either misunderstood or misrepresent what I said...what I said was that the first 2 murders, which were virtually identical in almost every aspect excluding the extent of the post mortem injuries

Why are you excluding the extent of the post-mortem injuries when that is one of the cornerstones you use to dissociate the other victims?

The ones that do not match that pattern, like Liz Strides, cannot be assumed to have been done by the same individual.

Stride is a grey area, but she is the only one who doesn't match the pattern of throat-cutting + post-mortem mutilation.

Mary Kelly was at home in bed

And Patricia Atkinson was murdered indoors, whereas before Peter Sutcliffe's other victims had been killed outside. He had the opportunity to kill her before they entered her flat but chose not to on this occasion. Serial killers aren't bound to use the same approach every time.

and was destroyed

Because she was killed indoors, no?

not soliciting on the street

Isn't there evidence to suggest that Mary Kelly was soliciting that night? Astrakhan Man was seen picking her up on the street, and if you don't want to buy Hutchinson's account, there's the Blotchy man that MJK was seen entertaining. Both potential punters, both potential murderers.

and no trace of skill full cutting.

Perhaps the killer worked better under pressure? After all, he wasn't on the tight schedule of a snatch n' grab in the middle of the street. He had the specimen all to himself, and if destruction was the goal this time, why would we necessarily need to see evidence of skill?

Although you would like to see any knife crime in 188 or 1889 linked to the mythical Jack the Ripper

Strawman.

For example, why you would choose to believe that all of these other individuals would suddenly cease activities during that Fall when we have, blatantly obviously, other cases that do not fit the profile created by the first 2 murders..like Torsos.

How many murders were there in Whitechapel before 1888? There was plenty of petty violence but how many murders and how many of this type? You have to ask yourself what caused this massive spike in murders, some 'convergence of evil' or was there a psychotic serial killer at large? Which of these explanations takes the least number of assumptions?

Your smart aleck approach to defeating logical arguments is well noted.

I'm not the one trying to reinvent the wheel with some crackpot multi-killer hypothesis. At least you aren't quite on the Peter Turnbull level of wackiness, who believed every single murder was by a different hand. I guess there's still hope for you yet.

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=Harry D;409027]Why are you excluding the extent of the post-mortem injuries when that is one of the cornerstones you use to dissociate the other victims?

Again with the mirespresentations...abdominal mutilations. Didint realize you envision facial slashes as being in the abdominal region.

Stride is a grey area, but she is the only one who doesn't match the pattern of throat-cutting + post-mortem mutilation.

Stride is an obvious deviation, once you use the grey matter.

And Patricia Atkinson was murdered indoors, whereas before Peter Sutcliffe's other victims had been killed outside. He had the opportunity to kill her before they entered her flat but chose not to on this occasion. Serial killers aren't bound to use the same approach every time.

I could care less what modern theory about serial killers is, as I said.. once again... I believe we are talking about 2 murders by one man, maybe 3, and that is just barely within the serial killer definition.

Because she was killed indoors, no?

No. Because she was killed indoors in bed...location...., because she was half the age of any other Canonical...victimology...., because she was taken apart without any focus on any specific region of her body...signature/pattern..., because she had injuries that are more consistent with a killer that was known to her than with any previous "Ripper" murder, because we have evidence there were circumstances that suggest possible motive.....random act...., and because he took an organ that also symbolically can be linked with someone known by her. Polly and Annie....outdoors actively soliciting, middle aged, both physical compromised, double throat cuts, clothing adjusted to allow pm abdominal mutilation.

Isn't there evidence to suggest that Mary Kelly was soliciting that night?

There is a statement by witness that is later discredited that suggests that. It appears though she was out drinking and came home drunk with someone from the bar, the either slept with the man or by herself.

Astrakhan Man was seen picking her up on the street, and if you don't want to buy Hutchinson's account,....(I dont)..... there's the Blotchy man that MJK was seen entertaining. Both potential punters, both potential murderers.

Blotchy man is a good suspect, if his name was Joe, he is a very good suspect. Issacs is also a good possibility...Joe Isaacs.

Perhaps the killer worked better under pressure? After all, he wasn't on the tight schedule of a snatch n' grab in the middle of the street. He had the specimen all to himself, and if destruction was the goal this time, why would we necessarily need to see evidence of skill?

Maybe because he had possibly an hour or more...he may have had 5-8 minutes with Kate if she is another victim, and possibly 10-20 minutes with Polly and Annie...and the first 2 convinced authorities they were looking for trained knifesman. Not just butchers. They sought out medically trained people in September. People dont show less skill with more time available....Im surprised I should have to even say that.

Strawman.



How many murders were there in Whitechapel before 1888? There was plenty of petty violence but how many murders and how many of this type? You have to ask yourself what caused this massive spike in murders, some 'convergence of evil' or was there a psychotic serial killer at large? Which of these explanations takes the least number of assumptions?

You have Torsos that precede the Fall of Terror, and you have terrorist killings going back to the early 1880's. You also have a number of known killers in London at that time, possibly one who killed prostitutes in Paris using a knife.

I'm not the one trying to reinvent the wheel with some crackpot multi-killer hypothesis. At least you aren't quite on the Peter Turnbull level of wackiness, who believed every single murder was by a different hand. I guess there's still hope for you yet.

Id like say that I share the sentiments, but its simply a matter of using ONLY what is there...instead of trying to explain Liz Strides obvious lack of injuries and pattern, or Marys deconstruction in her bed in her underwear, in order for it to fit modern serial killer theory. Polly and Annie were killed by one man...they were almost identical murders, they were cut skillfully, and their adbomens were the focus of the mutilations. If anything, Alice might match that more closely. Not the rest of the Canonicals.

Its getting exhausting being one of the few here who is trying to use reason and logic decifering what happened, instead of being so anxious for answers that grouping Liz Stride into the mix seems sensible.

Dont have a suspect, dont need one. My goal is to obtain an accurate total.

[Michael W Richards]

"Mary Kelly was at home in bed and was destroyed, not soliciting on the street, and no trace of skill full cutting."

Hello Michael,

So are you suggesting that in the Fall of 1888 there were two different killers walking the streets of Whitechapel one of whom preferred cutting the throats of prostitutes and taking out their internal organs on the street while the other one had a preference for cutting the throats of prostitutes and ripping out their internal organs while safely ensconced inside?

c.d.

I can say with great confidence that I never said anything like that.

[Michael W Richards]

Exactly
It's absurd how far some people go on here to see minor differences in major similarities. I mean you could say there are 5 different serial killers based on the minor differences in c5.

Polly. No organs taken
Chapman. Uterus taken
Eddowes. Kidney taken
Stride. Cut throat only
Kelly. Heart taken

We are all familiar with the wisecracks and bizarre interpretations. Maybe you should read about the cases....without the so often insertion of suspect bias. Location/Victimology/Signature-Pattern...all that matters. And of course that the real so called Ripper murders were random acts.

[Abby Normal]

We are all familiar with the wisecracks and bizarre interpretations. Maybe you should read about the cases....without the so often insertion of suspect bias. Location/Victimology/Signature-Pattern...all that matters. And of course that the real so called Ripper murders were random acts.

Yes it all does matter and points to a serial killer and not random acts.

[The Good Michael]

The man was Michael Maybrick of course and he was using a verse from a song he'd been working on which mocked Polish immigrants in the end. I don't remember the entire song as I was stumbling around drunk trying to light a pipe, but it went something like "Loose Lipskis, sink shipskis."

Pipeman

[Abby Normal]

The man was Michael Maybrick of course and he was using a verse from a song he'd been working on which mocked Polish immigrants in the end. I don't remember the entire song as I was stumbling around drunk trying to light a pipe, but it went something like "Loose Lipskis, sink shipskis."

Pipeman

Lol. Well aren't you a clever little devil.

[Michael W Richards]

Yes it all does matter and points to a serial killer and not random acts.

I'm curious...what evidence do you base your assumption on that Polly and Annie were not random acts of violence, stranger to stranger as it were.

[John G]

I'm curious...what evidence do you base your assumption on that Polly and Annie were not random acts of violence, stranger to stranger as it were.

The double throat cuts, in respect of Polly and Annie, are strongly indicative of a ritualistic element to those murders. And, this is very much indicative of a serial killer.

[c.d.]

I'm curious...what evidence do you base your assumption on that Polly and Annie were not random acts of violence, stranger to stranger as it were.

Hello Michael,

The problem is that random acts of violence do not equate to the Ripper murders. It is the very nature of the murders, i.e, organ removal (or in Polly's case an apparent attempt at such) that make them unique. If all of these women had simply had their throats cut Ripperology would not be what it is today. So yes, bad men did exist in Whitechapel as you say but simply being a bad or evil man or even a murderer is not the same as a murderer who removes internal organs from the women he killed.

Focusing on the differences in the murders makes us lose sight of what made them unique in the first place.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

I'm curious...what evidence do you base your assumption on that Polly and Annie were not random acts of violence, stranger to stranger as it were.

Hi Michael
first of all, they probably were stranger to stranger, except perhaps the Kelly murder, which seems to be that they were known to each other.

the similarity of the series is why they were not random acts of violence-its the clear pattern of a serial killer who, as most do, perfect there technique as they go along and exhibit escalating violence as there fantasy evolves. which might explain any apparent "differences" between murders, as will the specific circumstances of each particular event.

as ive said countless times before-you miss the major similarities between them by focusing on minute differences. cant see the forest through the trees so to speak. That and or some pre conceived theories that you stubbornly adhere to.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael
first of all, they probably were stranger to stranger, except perhaps the Kelly murder, which seems to be that they were known to each other.

the similarity of the series is why they were not random acts of violence-its the clear pattern of a serial killer who, as most do, perfect there technique as they go along and exhibit escalating violence as there fantasy evolves. which might explain any apparent "differences" between murders, as will the specific circumstances of each particular event.

as ive said countless times before-you miss the major similarities between them by focusing on minute differences. cant see the forest through the trees so to speak. That and or some pre conceived theories that you stubbornly adhere to.

I agree that the first 2 were almost certainly stranger to stranger, it appears that while soliciting these women met their killer, and whether their diminished capacity or the fact that they were alone in the middle of the night, he took his opportunity. A random killing, in that no specific person was intended.

The thing I take seriously, where some others do not, are the circumstances. Both Polly and Annie were weakened physically, Polly from drink, Annie was ill, but they were also the ONLY 2 Canonicals that were KNOWN to be soliciting at the time. Therefore their very activity provided the killer with the means to get them into the dark alone. That cannot be said within the remaining 3 women who were also in that infamous Group. In fact, 1 was at home in bed.

The actual wounds created were all by knife, but they differed greatly by severity and focus. Also by demonstrated skill.

That's why I cling to the beliefs I have.

[Harry D]

Stride is an obvious deviation, once you use the grey matter.

There are reasons to doubt Stride, that much is a given, but there are also too many unknowns to say either way with any great confidence. And yes, I'm going to roll out the usual chestnut that the killer might have been disrupted.

I could care less what modern theory about serial killers is, as I said.. once again... I believe we are talking about 2 murders by one man, maybe 3, and that is just barely within the serial killer definition.

First of all, it's couldn't care less, since the opposite is a contradiction in meaning. It's a pet peeve of mine that you North Americans have butchered that expression. Secondly, I'm well aware of your aversion to comparisons with modern serial killers. That doesn't make them any less valid.

No. Because she was killed indoors in bed...location...., because she was half the age of any other Canonical...victimology....

This is such a reductive argument that I can't even be bothered to refute it.

There is a statement by witness that is later discredited that suggests that. It appears though she was out drinking and came home drunk with someone from the bar, the either slept with the man or by herself.

Hutchinson's story was sketchy but was it ever discredited? How do you know the man who came back with MJK wasn't a punter? She was a destitute who made her money on her back and had recently broken up with her live-in lover. It's not exactly a stretch to think she was back on the game.

Blotchy man is a good suspect, if his name was Joe, he is a very good suspect. Issacs is also a good possibility...Joe Isaacs.

And if 'Blotchy' or Joseph Isaacs were good suspects for that crime, chances are they were candidates for the rest.

Roll your eyes all you want, you made the faux pas that I want to see "any knife crime in 1888 or 1889" attributed to the Ripper. I never said or even implied such a thing. I have no idea how many of these murders were committed by the same man. There are serial killers out there whose victim counts have hit double figures and they adjusted their methods. In which case, how can we definitively rule out any of these unsolved murders in Whitechapel? However, what I can do is recognise a consistent pattern.

Dont have a suspect, dont need one. My goal is to obtain an accurate total.

And let me just say you've done a bang up job so far!